tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Dec 15 10:11:37 1994
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: -lu'
According to R.B Franklin:
>
>
> On Wed, 14 Dec 1994 [email protected] wrote:
>
> [...]
> > But we do have
> > {ba'lu'} as a canonical verb, showing that intransitives do take {-lu'}. As
> > much as some people may not like it, that's canon, and it does fit in with
> > the grammar as a whole. {-lu'} has little to do with the object.
>
> I am very surprised to learn that {-lu'} can be used on intransitive verbs.
> Please cite the source where this verb appears.
I was surprised, too, but there it is in TKD, page 171 in a
badly butchered example, "Is this seat taken?" The actual
spelling in TKD is {quSDaQ ba' lu''a'}, but clearly, the {Q}
should be {q} and there should be no space between {ba'} and
{lu''a'}. After correction, it becomes {quSDaQ ba'lu''a'?}.
It is the only example in canon of {-lu'} on a passive verb,
and it is both badly botched and not exactly of Klingon
character. A REAL Klingon would just sit in the empty seat and
if anybody looked at him funny, he'd just belch, {qay'a'?}
Meanwhile, I definitely lost all arguments against {-lu'} on
passive verbs, and after a few sessions with the pain sticks,
I've come to wonder why I ever argued against their use at all.
It looks perfectly fine to me. {{:)
> > Guido
>
> yoDtargh
charghwI'
--
\___
o_/ \
<\__,\
"> | Get a grip.
` |